- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:43:41 +0100
- To: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jim Whitehead wrote: > Geoff Clemm writes: > > >>The REBIND method was intended to have syntax that paralleled >>BIND. This means that the request-URL is the collection into >>which the binding is being created, the segment in the body >>is the new binding name in the request-URL collection, and >>the href in the body is the "source", i.e. the resource that >>is being rebound. >> >>The recent edits in this section (intended to address Jim's >>observation that the meaning of arguments of the method were >>not underspecified) were incorrect and broke this. In >>particular, the introductory sentences of REBIND should be >>modeled after BIND, and the precondition names (which were >>originally correct) should be restored. > > > Do we care that the parameters are now switched as compared to those of > MOVE? > > Source Destination > > MOVE Request-URI Destination header > > REBIND href XML elem Request-URI plus segment > XML elem > > > I think it doesn't matter, but thought I should raise it. REBIND is different from MOVE anyway (by design). Making it consistent with BIND then makes a lot of sense. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 10 December 2004 08:44:18 UTC